Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1) The re-title contracts don’t really obligate the library to the composer
A chance that all of those non-exclusive contracts would be null and void? We get all our music back unencumbered?
The PRO’s governing documents allow them to not pay composers and publishers for any reason.
Just can’t see them doing that.
I guess that’s the product of being a lawyer…to err on the side of caution.
I get that but personally, I don’t see the risk.
Tunesat is just not worth it in my opinion anymore.
It’s worth it for me as I have collected money that I would have otherwise missed. Recently Tunesat has been detecting a commercial that’s run well over 2000 times. I would not have known that and been able to file the necessary documentation with BMI.
just too many have done re-titles, its not so easy to dump it.
I’ve been saying this for years. A lot of folks have been saying “the sky is falling” but I just don’t buy it. That genie is out of the bottle and will be impossible to put back.
Most likely a third party deal made by a library you have that song signed to.
Personally I think $1.00 is way to low. My take would be $30-$50.
I would like to first express my gratitude to Art for this amazing website,
Thanks Chris, welcome aboard!
Art, is the Cue Critiques section of the forum the best way to get feedback, or could I just link to my Soundcloud page?
Now that’s an interesting thought. Is it possible to embed more than a link. Maybe the actual player? That way I could start a forum for critiques and folks could embed the Soundcloud player with their tune. Possible?
Typically on a non-exclusive the library will re-title the song, register that title with BMI with you as composer and they as publisher. That gives them the publishing income.
This thread will answer some questions for you.
BTW, I also have a limited time free account with LicenseQuote and I’m playing with that one too. You don’t really need to use all of the licensing options they offer and can use a simple “Buy” button. I’m intrigued by the ability to use API calls. If you want to see a nice implementation of that check out http://www.music-for-video.com. The site is in Italy and the English is a bit mangled in spots but I love how that site looks and functions.
I’ve tried Source Audio (sourceaudio.com) a couple of times with their free 30 day account option. It’s very slick, with a lot of functionality but I passed and here’s why.
1.) Expensive. When you start adding in all the alt mixes for each song (I currently do eight per song) the price really climbs.
2.) No capability to reference an external server where your tracks might be stored. That would require me to upload everything to Source Audio.
3.) They have a “Buyer Network” but the buyers pay $99 per month. Huh? They want music buyers to pay for the privilege of buying your music. Maybe I missed something there but I don’t get that one.
I will say their tech support was great and they are very responsive. My biggest complaint was the fact that I could not store my files externally.
Finally, I welcome anyone from Source Audio to come on MLR and join the conversation.
Fair enough Doug. I won’t post anything more about this. My apologies.
Please keep posting Mark. It sounds like a great product and I encourage you to keep us all informed!
the posts were deleted and the vendors given the bum’s rush…
But, is this type of discussion allowed, or not? Can’t figure it out.
Well, yes and no and I plead guilty for not being consistent. It generally works on my relationships with such vendors and their willingness to be a part of the MLR community. Mark from ML has been involved here almost from the beginning and consistently stays involved. Michael Borges from LicenseQuote has had less involvement but I’ve talked with him on the phone a number of times and he’s been very helpful with specific questions I have had. A number of sites using LicenseQuote are fairly successful and for some composers it’s a great solution, it’s particularly slick when you get into the API calls.
Other vendors tend to jump in when their only intent is to try and sell a product. I try to ask them to get involved and if not, at least take out an ad (my ad rates are very reasonable). They always go away so I question their motives. BTW I have checked out most of them and, along with the experience of building my own site, find they are expensive or found wanting in some other way.
I don’t see it as a threat to existing RF sites. You will not be able to duplicate the investment of dollars and man hours of libraries like AudioSparx and Musicloops.
I agree.
1) What size catalog do you think is necessary to make a viable option,
To a some degree I’m not sure that matters (certainly in the high hundreds but I do not have facts to back that up). It’s going to be more about marketing, SEO, social media, etc. Getting ones head around how best to that will be key IMHO. I would imagine the approach will be different for each person.
2) how much variety should the catalog have?
I would think as much as possible.
3) is it manageable for one (or two) people without taking away too much composing time?
It will take time, lots of it but I enjoy the aspect of building something I have control over. I look at the number of tracks I have and know that most of them have sold somewhere. To me it’s a numbers game of getting in front of as many buyers as possible. That’s a challenge I enjoy taking on, sometimes more than composing.
You need to search MLR before posting. They are listed at
https://musiclibraryreport.com/music-services/music-supervisor-guide-directory/. Check out that link. The topic here is now closed.